What's the deal?

[FizzingWhizzbees]

in my opinion, individuals wanting or engaging in fornification with the same sex (because of a supposedly "natural" inclination or by choice) have a defect/abnorality.

Trip,
Here's something that's not making sense to me. See just a couple of posts back you described my comments as "f---ed up" as well as "rash" and "idiotic." All because I said I think those who say homosexuality is a sin are homophobic. You said that you're not homophobic, and yet here you are claiming that lesbians and gay men have a "defect/abnormality." If I said that everyone who's a Republican, for example, was abnormal then I'd expect to get accused of showing contempt for Republicans. If I said anyone who's a Christian has a "defect" then I'd rightly be accused of showing contempt for Christians.

So why is it different when we're talking about homosexuality? If someone says it's abnormal to be gay then they're saying it's wrong, it's not normal. That IS homophobic. That's saying if the person you love is the same sex as you then there's something wrong with that love. That's saying to the thirteen year old who's confused by why he likes other boys when all his friends are chasing after the girls that there's something wrong with the way he feels, that he's abnormal, that he has a defect.

And while we're on the subject, I've never understood those who say people "choose" to be gay. I'm sure people are just queuing up to experience first-hand how much homophobia there is in society. I'm sure they can't wait to find out how hard it is to keep your sexuality a secret at work because you might get fired if your boss finds out that you're gay. I'm sure people can't wait to have homophobic abuse shouted at them when they walk down the street with their partner. I'm sure they love trying to keep their personal life a secret from their family because they're afraid they'll be rejected.

Did anyone here who's heterosexual choose to like people of the opposite sex? Was it a conscious decision you made? No? Then why on earth does anyone assume it's a choice to be gay?

 

[melon]

by this same logic, God also "created" newborns with heart defects and other devastating abnoralities in health...that's not to say we embrace and celebrate those "inherent" things...

By this same logic, God also "created" left-handedness...we just don't sit back and that's not to say we embrace and celebrate those "inherent' things...

BTW, in the 1950s, my left-handed uncle was berated and forced to write with his right-hand, because it went contrary to society's concept of "normal." Not every variance in human nature must be so drastic. Homosexuality is nothing like potentially fatal heart defects.

Regardless, the issue of fatal/non-fatal/curable/non-curable is a non-issue. In fact, there are a *lot* of heart defects that are *still* incurable. Now are these individuals with these heart defects now sinful, because they cannot cure themselves and become "normal"? Are they now less worthy of life, liberty, and happiness? Humans are amazingly adaptable in the face of variance, and homosexuals are no different. But who is there to stand in the way? Those proverbial "right-handed" people, who compulsively insist on uniformity.

we don't just sit back and allow these things to run their course. in my opinion, individuals wanting or engaging in fornification with the same sex (because of a supposedly "natural" inclination or by choice) have a defect/abnorality.

If God insisted on perfection, he wouldn't have created the process of conception and development of a zygote into a human as He did. Are you familiar with how we are developed? Here's a crash course:

As a zygote, a ball of cells after conception, we can get ripped apart, leading to identical twins. However, that ball of cells can also be ripped apart incompletely, leading to "Siamese Twins." There goes that first semblence of perfection...

As an embryo, we are visually identical to most mammals, complete with a tail, eight or more nipples, and even gills I believe (don't quote me on this last one). But, most surprisingly, as embryos/early fetuses, we are true hermaphrodites, complete with a male and female reproductive system. Later on, this is where the XX/XY thing comes into play: the mother and you release several hormones, and, theoretically, the presence of a Y gene triggers the destruction of the female reproductive system and the lack of a Y gene triggers the destruction of the male reproductive system. However, this is not a simple process. The mother may not release all the right hormones, as she might have a genetic mutation that prevents this hormone release. The fetus, itself, might have a mutation that prevents it from receiving a hormone or hormones. Hence, you have everything from pseudohermaphrodism to the XY female, and, yes, these are more common than you'd like to think. And, no, the XY female is incurable. Essentially, this process is dependent on all factors coordinating at once with the proper genetic receptors, because once this moment is passed, there is no return.

if you choose to believe that homosexuals are "born" that way, and if you know anything about the God of Christianity, it would be false to claim that He "purposely" instills or creates an inclination in men for something in which He clearly condemns. If you are familiar with the Bible, you also know about the Fall of man, in which descendants of Adam and Eve would be plagued with all sorts of disease (inclusive of the mind and hearts of men). so you cannot claim that He brings about or "creates" these abominations.

Right here, you are a product of medieval Catholic stoic and Calvinist fundamentalist tradition, whether you are conscious of it or not. If you study the Bible closely in its translations over the centuries, you will actually find that it makes no mention of modern homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance, is interpreted over and over in the Old Testament as a sin against the hospitality towards strangers, which was an inviolable custom in ancient Judaism. Homosexuality is merely the device for violating Lot's guests; the actual sin was the violation, which could have been done in any fashion. A mirror of Sodom and Gomorrah takes place in Judges, with the city of Gibeah, but the difference is that it involves the protagonist giving a female concubine that is given to the mob, whom they rape and destroy. As a result of this violation, God commands the destruction of Gibeah. If this means anything sexual, God commands against rape of any sexuality.

Where did Sodom and Gomorrah's homosexual interpretation come from? The c. 200 B.C. apocryphal book, the Book of Jubilees, which, while not in our Bible, was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning that ancient Judaism read this book. Jesus, Himself, mentions "the sin of Sodom" once in the gospels, and it is over inhospitality towards strangers. This "homosexual interpretation" is a fallacy.

The "fall of Adam and Eve" is mostly an invention of the medieval Catholic stoics, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. This was to reinvent the idea of original sin, which they created prior to condemn women. "Original sin," in its first incarnation, taught that all fetuses were inherently male, but that Satan came in and changed fetuses to make them female. As all fetuses must pass through an "evil" female, we were all in "original sin," which is washed away through baptism. The later Catholic Church changed "original sin" to mean "the sin of Adam and Eve," but, most importantly to them, "the sin of Eve," as an excuse to claim that women were everything from genetically evil to morally weak. Hmm...doesn't this remind you of some attitudes towards homosexuality? Overall, to me, this is tradition taken too far and is completely unsubstantiated in the Bible.

But does God hate loving same-sex relationships in the Bible? Not really. Take a close look at David and Jonathan in 1 and 2 Samuel. There is certainly no evidence of it ever being more than platonic, albeit some of the language in these very poetic books can imply a very erotic relationship at least. "Your love surpasses all women," as David says to Jonathan. I would certainly love some of these passages read at the pulpit sometime.

if God is in fact perfectly okay with homosexuality--wow, it's pretty damn unfair that He never blessed these individuals with the ability to pro-create, isn't it? Now that would be pretty unjust for God to have such favor with only those who engage in heterosexual fornification...wouldn't it? The God i know and believe in is far from unjust.

First off, you are reflecting ancient Jewish tradition, which put such a burden on procreation that you weren't even a member of the religion unless you were married and with children. Jesus rejects this legalism clearly in the gospels, but this legalism was revived nonetheless with Christian tradition. Secondly, ancient church fathers (read: St. Paul) believed so wholeheartedly that Jesus had liberated them from the Jewish burden of marriage that they were even going to abolish the institution altogether. However, acknowledging that humans were imperfect, they kept it. Even at that, marriage in the first millennium of the Church was more of a private commitment between two people. The "cult of marriage" did not happen until c. 1100-1200, when the Catholic Church made it a full-fledged sacrament. So now are you saying that the first millennium of the Church are all fornicators? Interestingly enough, the evolution of marriage arose from God making a covenant....between David and Jonathan.

But speaking as "one of the defective" wink, I don't need biological children. Seeing all the children out there abandoned by their parents, I wish to adopt someday. I do not need my specific genes propagated to feel whole. I was once angry at God...but mostly because of the hate levelled at me by my "fellow Christians." In fact, I feel blessed to be who I am. It has given me a perspective on life that I know I would not have taken the time to have had I been straight. Who knows...I may have turned into an apathetic Christian (because I am "so" comfortable in my early beliefs) in an unhappy marriage, like so many out there.

I believe it is due time to at least reevaluate your beliefs, because, as it stands, I believe many of them are based in flawed tradition, which isn't your fault. We speak of many "false prophets" in the Bible, and what a better way to propagate them by listening to our ministers and preachers as if they were infallible.

Melon

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Re: What's the deal?

btw, i do admire the way in which melon argues his points and presents his opinions (despite the fact that i may not agree with him at times). he's able to keep a cool head and maintain his dignity without compromising his argument, unlike some people here.

Thank you. I do try and keep a level head. Of course, I have also combatted this argument about 5-10 times since joining this forum, so I kind of have my arguments on this subject down to a science, knowing what to say and how to say it.

Take care...

Melon

 

[speedracer]

Right here, you are a product of medieval Catholic stoic and Calvinist fundamentalist tradition, whether you are conscious of it or not. If you study the Bible closely in its translations over the centuries, you will actually find that it makes no mention of modern homosexuality.

What about in Leviticus 20? In Leviticus 20 God prescribes captial punishment for adultery, incest, homosexuality and bestiality.

As Christians, we understand most of the Jewish laws of the Old Testament to be obsolete (e.g. laws against eating pork, eating milk and meat, shaving, wearing cotton-poly boxers, etc). We understand that the laws at the time were intended to distinguish the Jews (from whose lineage Jesus would come) from the other peoples of the world. But because of Acts 10-11 (where God appears to Peter in a dream and instructs him to eat all sorts of unclean animals) and Mark 7 (where Jesus explicitly states that all foods are 'clean'), we understand that these laws are now a hindrance to preaching the Gospel to non-Jews.

However, it seems strange to me that God would treat homosexuality as an obsolete kosher-type law when originally he prescribed capital punishment for it.

In Peter's vision, God didn't abolish the the laws against homosexuality.

In his earthly ministry, Jesus 'defiled' himself by healing a leper and was 'defiled' when a chronically hemmorrhaging woman touched him, thus demonstrating that the laws of ritual uncleanliness were obsolete as well (though there may have been some health value to those laws). He could have verbally annulled the law against homosexuality or taken in a gay man or woman as one of his disciples and settled the issue once and for all, but he didn't. (Gay Christians often note that Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality, but neither did he explicitly condone it.)

Finally, it seems to me that Paul is condemning all forms of homosexuality in Romans 1, not just promiscuous homosexuality.

What gives?

 

[melon]

What about in Leviticus 20? In Leviticus 20 God prescribes captial punishment for adultery, incest, homosexuality and bestiality.

As Christians, we understand most of the Jewish laws of the Old Testament to be obsolete (e.g. laws against eating pork, eating milk and meat, shaving, wearing cotton-poly boxers, etc). We understand that the laws at the time were intended to distinguish the Jews (from whose lineage Jesus would come) from the other peoples of the world. But because of Acts 10-11 (where God appears to Peter in a dream and instructs him to eat all sorts of unclean animals) and Mark 7 (where Jesus explicitly states that all foods are 'clean'), we understand that these laws are now a hindrance to preaching the Gospel to non-Jews.

However, it seems strange to me that God would treat homosexuality as an obsolete kosher-type law when originally he prescribed capital punishment for it.

In Peter's vision, God didn't abolish the the laws against homosexuality.

In his earthly ministry, Jesus 'defiled' himself by healing a leper and was 'defiled' when a chronically hemmorrhaging woman touched him, thus demonstrating that the laws of ritual uncleanliness were obsolete as well (though there may have been some health value to those laws). He could have verbally annulled the law against homosexuality or taken in a gay man or woman as one of his disciples and settled the issue once and for all, but he didn't. (Gay Christians often note that Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality, but neither did he explicitly condone it.)

Finally, it seems to me that Paul is condemning all forms of homosexuality in Romans 1, not just promiscuous homosexuality.

What gives?

First off, "ritual uncleanliness" is designated in Mosaic Law by the word, "toevah," which is harshly translated as "abomination." That's the first problem. Supposed condemnations of homosexuals in Leviticus fall under the "toevah" ritual condemnation. Homosexuality, as such, is no more "abominable" than wearing multi-fabric clothing or having acne. Most reform and conservative Jewish rabbis will be forced to admit that these "ritual purity" laws only applied to "the chosen people," e.g., the Jews. Gentiles, as they will mention, are not affected by these laws. Considering that most of us are Gentile Christians in origin, these passages are not even applied to us even by Judaism.

Secondly, you forget Acts 19:20, which directly contradicts your claim of only eliminating "ritual" Mosaic Law.

Acts 19:20 -- It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.

Unfortunately, I must clarify further with the poor translation of "porneia," here translated as "unlawful marriage." "Porneia," the original word in the text, refers to blood mixing between relatives (mother, father, sister, brother, cousin, etc.), so it is better translated as "incest." Regardless, this book stops abruptly on the subject, implying that this debate was complete. In fact, this compromise judgment between St. Peter's Jewish-minded Church of Jerusalem, which insisted on continuing the Mosaic Law, and St. Paul's Gentile-minded Church of Antioch, was never enacted. The two churches continued squabbling, until the Church of Antioch's effective destruction of the Church of Jerusalem. St. Paul and his followers continued to preach the obsolescence of the entire Mosaic Law, teaching instead the liberation of Jesus' Golden Rule ("Love one another"), and the Church of Antioch developed into what we now call the Catholic Church. Catholicism continues to teach the obsolescence of the Mosaic Law, but it is Calvinism that created this arbitrary distinction between ritual and actual Mosaic Law, likely to foster its belief that the Bible is inerrant.

Third, the passage in question in Leviticus is dubious itself. Considering that the modern concept of a homosexual didn't exist until the 1870s in Germany, it has always been unlikely that it referred to homosexuality as we know it. An analysis of the original Hebrew confirms this:

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Now to reduce the key words back to their original translation:

"'Ish' shall not lie with 'zakar' as those who lie with 'ishah'. It is 'toevah'"

Ish = husband
Ishah = wife
Toevah = ritual condemnation

The dubious word in question is "zakar." If the writers insisted on making it a blanket condemnation of same sex relations, it would have said "'Ish' shall not lie with 'ish.'" Instead, it uses the more dubious "zakar," which is believed to be a word in reference to a male temple prostitute, as this was a very popular cult ritual back then. Again, the question is whether this passage is in blanket condemnation of homosexual activity or the pagan implication it had to have sex with a male temple prostitute, as it was the belief of these pagan religions that to be close to the gods was to engage in large temple orgies. These, however, were not wholly homosexual in activity, but, rather, bisexual.

My point is that the passages you referenced to are poorly translated and poorly understood at best. An analysis of the original language, along with analysis of modern Jewish interpretation, shows that these passages were written for different purposes than what they are translated as now.

Melon

 

[melon]

And here's an interesting Bible passage:

2 Peter 3:16-18 -- "Paul wrote things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as they do the rest of scripture, to their own destruction! You, therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled people, you fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory, both now and to the day of eternity Amen."

How prophetic St. Peter was indeed.

Melon

 

[Sorgie]

Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance, is interpreted over and over in the Old Testament as a sin against the hospitality towards strangers, which was an inviolable custom in ancient Judaism. Homosexuality is merely the device for violating Lot's guests; the actual sin was the violation, which could have been done in any fashion. A mirror of Sodom and Gomorrah takes place in Judges, with the city of Gibeah, but the difference is that it involves the protagonist giving a female concubine that is given to the mob, whom they rape and destroy. As a result of this violation, God commands the destruction of Gibeah. If this means anything sexual, God commands against rape of any sexuality.


Melon

Melon makes many great points once again. Due to the incredible crappiness of my computer, I'm gonna let this webpage speak for me. Check it out, it offers an enlightening discussion different ways on interpreting the bible's stance on homosexuality. i think what it makes clear though, is that it isn't "God" that has an opinion on such matters, but rather those who interpret "The Word".


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

 

[sharky]

this has turned in to quite an interesting discussion and melon, you've definitely brought some new things to the table I wasn't aware of.

Forgive me if this has been mentioned [I don't believe it has yet] but many people misinterpret the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality. The Catholic Church has come out and officially said there is nothing wrong with people who are homosexuals. In fact, they acknowledge that there are homosexuals who are outstanding examples of what it means to be a Catholic. The Church itself only condemns homosexual acts. Of course, that does mean that if you are homosexual, you're not able to practice it which is in a sense denying part of your sexuality [regardless of orientation].

 

[speedracer]

First off, "ritual uncleanliness" is designated in Mosaic Law by the word, "toevah," which is harshly translated as "abomination." That's the first problem. Supposed condemnations of homosexuals in Leviticus fall under the "toevah" ritual condemnation. Homosexuality, as such, is no more "abominable" than wearing multi-fabric clothing or having acne.

But...why then is capital punishment prescribed for the offenses in Leviticus 20? Seems to me that these offenses are regarded as belonging to a different class of no-nos from mere "toevah".

Secondly, you forget Acts 19:20, which directly contradicts your claim of only eliminating "ritual" Mosaic Law.

Acts 19:20 -- It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.

Unfortunately, I must clarify further with the poor translation of "porneia," here translated as "unlawful marriage." "Porneia," the original word in the text, refers to blood mixing between relatives (mother, father, sister, brother, cousin, etc.), so it is better translated as "incest." Regardless, this book stops abruptly on the subject, implying that this debate was complete. In fact, this compromise judgment between St. Peter's Jewish-minded Church of Jerusalem, which insisted on continuing the Mosaic Law, and St. Paul's Gentile-minded Church of Antioch, was never enacted. The two churches continued squabbling, until the Church of Antioch's effective destruction of the Church of Jerusalem. St. Paul and his followers continued to preach the obsolescence of the entire Mosaic Law, teaching instead the liberation of Jesus' Golden Rule ("Love one another"), and the Church of Antioch developed into what we now call the Catholic Church. Catholicism continues to teach the obsolescence of the Mosaic Law, but it is Calvinism that created this arbitrary distinction between ritual and actual Mosaic Law, likely to foster its belief that the Bible is inerrant.

I think you mean Acts 15:20, not Acts 19:20.

And the distinction between "ritual" and "actual" Mosaic law does not seem entirely arbitrary to me, given that there are elements of Mosaic law that we think are perfectly good. Paul and the Church of Antioch certainly would not have proclaimed the Ten Commandments as obsolete. (They might have relaxed the restrictions on Sabbath labor, but they would certainly agree with the intent of the Fourth Commandment.)

Third, the passage in question in Leviticus is dubious itself. Considering that the modern concept of a homosexual didn't exist until the 1870s in Germany, it has always been unlikely that it referred to homosexuality as we know it. An analysis of the original Hebrew confirms this:

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Now to reduce the key words back to their original translation:

"'Ish' shall not lie with 'zakar' as those who lie with 'ishah'. It is 'toevah'"

Ish = husband
Ishah = wife
Toevah = ritual condemnation

The dubious word in question is "zakar." If the writers insisted on making it a blanket condemnation of same sex relations, it would have said "'Ish' shall not lie with 'ish.'" Instead, it uses the more dubious "zakar," which is believed to be a word in reference to a male temple prostitute, as this was a very popular cult ritual back then. Again, the question is whether this passage is in blanket condemnation of homosexual activity or the pagan implication it had to have sex with a male temple prostitute, as it was the belief of these pagan religions that to be close to the gods was to engage in large temple orgies. These, however, were not wholly homosexual in activity, but, rather, bisexual.

But from the context of the rest of Leviticus 18 and 20 (which appear to be blanket prohibitions of bestiality and incest) I think that the blanket prohibition of homosexuality is the correct interpretation.

 

[melon]

But...why then is capital punishment prescribed for the offenses in Leviticus 20? Seems to me that these offenses are regarded as belonging to a different class of no-nos from mere "toevah".

Capital punishment is prescribed for many offenses in this book, which we wouldn't imagine prescribing capital offenses for today.

But here you are quoting the Mosaic Law, yet again.

Galatians 3:10-14: "For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.' And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for 'the one who is righteous by faith will live.' But the law does not depend on faith; rather, "the one who does these things will live by them." Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,' that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

I wish the Church fathers had cast aside the Old Testament as they originally planned, instead naively believing that everyone would see the OT for what they saw it as: a background reference text to the New Testament. Even conservative Judaism cast aside the Mosaic Law during the medieval Talmudic period. As I've read, the writers of the Mosaic Law were not mainstream Jews, but a fanatical splinter group, which is why I believe the Talmuds spent so much time voiding the Mosaic Law. It would perhaps be comparable to people 2500 years later taking the texts of David Koresh and believing them to be representative of all of Christianity.

I think you mean Acts 15:20, not Acts 19:20.

A typo it was.

And the distinction between "ritual" and "actual" Mosaic law does not seem entirely arbitrary to me, given that there are elements of Mosaic law that we think are perfectly good. Paul and the Church of Antioch certainly would not have proclaimed the Ten Commandments as obsolete. (They might have relaxed the restrictions on Sabbath labor, but they would certainly agree with the intent of the Fourth Commandment.)

Romans 13:8-10: "Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:1-5: "For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law. You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

To St. Paul, the entire Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, were replaced upon Jesus' creation of His only commandment, "Love God and love one another." Why we feel that the Ten Commandments still have relevance today is because they are indeed fulfillment of Jesus' commandment. Worrying about commands against shellfish and multi-fabric clothing, in contrast, do nothing to reveal the nature of one's love for God or one another--in fact, they do nothing--and that is why they are obsolete.

So why the Mosaic Law?

Galatians 3:19: "Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant [Jesus Christ] came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator."

And even St. Paul must admit that the Bible is not literal in all points, but symbolic:

Galatians 4:22-26: "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the freeborn woman. The son of the slave woman was born naturally, the son of the freeborn through a promise. Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children. But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother."

So do you really believe that much in the Mosaic Law?

But from the context of the rest of Leviticus 18 and 20 (which appear to be blanket prohibitions of bestiality and incest) I think that the blanket prohibition of homosexuality is the correct interpretation.

A blanket prohibition of homosexuality? No. A blanket prohibition of heterosexual people performing homosexual acts? Perhaps. Seeing the ancient view of homosexual acts, which involved rape, humiliation, adultery, idolatry, and violation, it is no wonder they might have viewed it in this manner. Living in the context of modern homosexuality and applying it to "Love one another," I can easily see why a monogamous, loving, same-sex relationship would please God.

I believe that I have, indeed, stated my opinions. Those who wish to follow parts of the Mosaic Law, by all means, follow your conscience. If, indeed, you wish to cast upon yourself "the yoke of slavery," as St. Paul affectionately refers to it, then please, be my guest.

Melon

 

[speedracer]

Capital punishment is prescribed for many offenses in this book, which we wouldn't imagine prescribing capital offenses for today.

But here you are quoting the Mosaic Law, yet again.

I thought it would be rather pedantic to have to explain to everyone that I don't believe that homosexual activity should be a capital offense, but I guess you force me to do so, so I will.

I don't believe that homosexual activity should be a capital offense.

That doesn't mean that everything that the Mosaic Law prohibited is now okay, though.

To St. Paul, the entire Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, were replaced upon Jesus' creation of His only commandment, "Love God and love one another." Why we feel that the Ten Commandments still have relevance today is because they are indeed fulfillment of Jesus' commandment. Worrying about commands against shellfish and multi-fabric clothing, in contrast, do nothing to reveal the nature of one's love for God or one another--in fact, they do nothing--and that is why they are obsolete.

(snip)

So do you really believe that much in the Mosaic Law?

All I'm saying is, I don't think homosexual activity would have merited capital punishment in the old Mosaic Law if it weren't harmful or somehow wrong in God's eyes. And if this were so, than any homosexual activity, even between a monogamous couple, would violate one of Jesus's two commandments. It's not obvious that this is so, but it's a possibility.

Who am I to suggest that homosexual activity is emotionally or spiritually destructive? Nobody. I don't have a complete understanding of human sexuality, but I think that the Mosaic Law serves as a warning here.

A blanket prohibition of homosexuality? No. A blanket prohibition of heterosexual people performing homosexual acts? Perhaps.
Seeing the ancient view of homosexual acts, which involved rape, humiliation, adultery, idolatry, and violation, it is no wonder they might have viewed it in this manner. Living in the context of modern homosexuality and applying it to "Love one another," I can easily see why a monogamous, loving, same-sex relationship would please God.

Minus any sexual activity, I agree.

(Aside: regarding the context of modern homosexuality, I have heard from people who are not religious that there is a significant part of the gay population of America that wants to legalize same-sex marriage for the express purpose of legitimizing their sexual practices--"serial monogamy", orgies and the like. Not a majority, but a significant part.)

I believe that I have, indeed, stated my opinions. Those who wish to follow parts of the Mosaic Law, by all means, follow your conscience. If, indeed, you wish to cast upon yourself "the yoke of slavery," as St. Paul affectionately refers to it, then please, be my guest.

All right, now I'm really upset. A snide, condescending, superior comment like that doesn't belong in what has been by and large a calm debate. There are folks who have studied this stuff much more than you or I who hold opinions on both sides.

I leave you with one final question: if a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship between two men is pleasing in God's eyes, why isn't a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship between siblings?

 

[TripThruUreWires]

But speaking as "one of the defective"

my apologies melon, and to anyone else i may have offended in my last post. my intentions were not to label homosexual individuals "defective" or "abnormal"...unfortunately i suppose it came across that way. i was actually trying to say that i thought the desire and the act of fornication with the same sex was "abnormal"..or "unnatural" (which i know you still disagree with and will have an argument for ).

believe me melon, i think you, as well as many other homosexual individuals, are wonderful people. i don't think any less of you or any other person because of their sexual orientation. i know for a fact that there are homosexuals out there who live more righteously than most "Christians". in believing that homosexuality is a sin, i'm not villifying anyone. we are all "sinners". i'm no better a person than you because i live a heterosexual lifestyle.

take care

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Woohoo!

Trip,
Here's something that's not making sense to me. See just a couple of posts back you described my comments as "f---ed up" as well as "rash" and "idiotic." All because I said I think those who say homosexuality is a sin are homophobic. You said that you're not homophobic, and yet here you are claiming that lesbians and gay men have a "defect/abnormality." If I said that everyone who's a Republican, for example, was abnormal then I'd expect to get accused of showing contempt for Republicans. If I said anyone who's a Christian has a "defect" then I'd rightly be accused of showing contempt for Christians.

So why is it different when we're talking about homosexuality? If someone says it's abnormal to be gay then they're saying it's wrong, it's not normal. That IS homophobic. That's saying if the person you love is the same sex as you then there's something wrong with that love. That's saying to the thirteen year old who's confused by why he likes other boys when all his friends are chasing after the girls that there's something wrong with the way he feels, that he's abnormal, that he has a defect.

And while we're on the subject, I've never understood those who say people "choose" to be gay. I'm sure people are just queuing up to experience first-hand how much homophobia there is in society. I'm sure they can't wait to find out how hard it is to keep your sexuality a secret at work because you might get fired if your boss finds out that you're gay. I'm sure people can't wait to have homophobic abuse shouted at them when they walk down the street with their partner. I'm sure they love trying to keep their personal life a secret from their family because they're afraid they'll be rejected.

Did anyone here who's heterosexual choose to like people of the opposite sex? Was it a conscious decision you made? No? Then why on earth does anyone assume it's a choice to be gay?

*Applauds* Well-said.

And Melon, same to you. I agree with both of you.

Angela

 

[cass]

I don't wish to enter into the debate as to whether homosexulaity is a choice or if it is a sin. Once again I can only speak from my limited experience.
If it makes anyone happier the homosexual men I know and love are really suffering here on earth ,right now. It can be very very difficult for them to find and conduct relationships without harrassment. One friend who I admire greatly, is now dedicating his life to AIDS research. I am not sure what is happening in other countries, but his study is finding so many of our young males who are suiciding have had a homosexual encounter with their friend and feel so guilty about it, they can't cope with the sense of shame.
Just one tiny thread to the story.

As for suppression of debate. I rarely post here and don't know how y'all get along. I find Interference fascinating because of the variety of opinion and personality and U2...and I find it very helpful to read other points of view.
Good luck.

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Re: Re: What's the deal?

I think what we often forget is that homosexuals are real people with real emotions.

a very important point...something very easy to forget when you get into debating this kind of stuff...

"Loving the sinner and hating the sin" is just like "separate but equal"--a figment of imagination designed to absolve the oppressor from guilt, while still maintaining the sense of dominance.

I've got to challenge you on this one, melon. As much as I'm sick of this phrase being used by people who clearly are not actually "loving the sinner", I still think it can be a valid, meaningful position to hold. I would think you would agree that God loves us, that we are all sinners, that God hates our sin, and that God is not an oppressor, but a liberator. I believe Jesus loved the "woman caught in adultery" but hated the adultery. Whether mongomous homosexuality is sin or not is another argument, but I don't think "loving the sinner and hating the sin" is a figment of the imagination.

But here you are quoting the Mosaic Law, yet again.

Galatians 3:10-14: "For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.' And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for 'the one who is righteous by faith will live.' But the law does not depend on faith; rather, "the one who does these things will live by them." Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,' that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

I agree with Paul here that the law does not save us. But that doesn't mean that the law was wrong.
In Romans 7:7 (the start of a fascinating passage) Paul says, "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

 

[melon]

That doesn't mean that everything that the Mosaic Law prohibited is now okay, though.

Of course not. There are many provisions of the Mosaic Law that would easily violate Jesus' pronouncement to "Love God and love one another." But it isn't the Mosaic Law that makes these things prohibited now. It is the violation of love that makes them prohibited.

All I'm saying is, I don't think homosexual activity would have merited capital punishment in the old Mosaic Law if it weren't harmful or somehow wrong in God's eyes. And if this were so, than any homosexual activity, even between a monogamous couple, would violate one of Jesus's two commandments. It's not obvious that this is so, but it's a possibility.

Allow me to be a bit more specific on the matters of Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law and the books that wrote about it all emanate from the same time period: post-exilic Judaism, where the Persian Empire frees the diaspora and allows them to return to their homeland that they haven't been to in probably 200-300 years. That period of time doesn't seem that long to us in the era of mass communication, but this is the ancient times: this is an immensely long period of time to them. Considering that every book in the OT, with the exception of parts of Genesis, come from the post-exilic period onward, there are some problems.

Why is the Mosaic Law so harsh? Quite honestly, these books were written to reassert authority over a Jewish population that has never known Jewish authority. The bombastic language of Leviticus is evident. There are constant assertions that "I am the LORD your God" and whatnot in these texts. There is even hard evidence of historical revisionism. In terms of Jewish slavery in Egypt, as depicted in Exodus, there is flat out no physical evidence to even back this story up, even with all the very ancient artifacts dug out of ancient Egypt, which is older than the Bible by many thousand years. Considering the post-exilic audience that felt enslaved, this story of "conquer in the face of adversity" would likely have been very popular. However, this isn't even my point.

My point is that I don't believe that the Mosaic Law was ever written, nor was it ever condoned by God Himself. It was the post-exilic period that the nature of God was forever changed, due to influence from the Persian dualistic religion, Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is the origin of the concept of a loving God, the origin of the concept of angels, the origin of the concept of Satan (Ahriman, or "Shaitan"). In other words, there is a distinct transformation between the ancient worldview of God, who is a violent warlord with specific demands on his people (otherwise they are killed), and the Zoroastrian view of a loving God, which so heavily influenced post-exilic Judaism that it populates the post-exilic Bible. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all written by the same sect, whom I believe was a dying breed of tyrant, holding onto the ancient worldview of a violent God all the way until the end.

Regardless, the Dead Sea Scrolls also show evidence of an evolving Bible, whereas the Mosaic Law is "larger" in our current texts than in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Who am I to suggest that homosexual activity is emotionally or spiritually destructive? Nobody. I don't have a complete understanding of human sexuality, but I think that the Mosaic Law serves as a warning here.

St. Paul gives plenty of warning himself on following the Mosaic Law. Shall I trust the older OT or the newer NT?

(Aside: regarding the context of modern homosexuality, I have heard from people who are not religious that there is a significant part of the gay population of America that wants to legalize same-sex marriage for the express purpose of legitimizing their sexual practices--"serial monogamy", orgies and the like. Not a majority, but a significant part.)

This reminds me of arguments for women's suffrage in the 19th-20th centuries. Going back and forth, one side argued that women shouldn't have the right to vote, because of their inherent weakness and due to St. Paul's pronouncements "proving" that women were merely subordinate to their husbands, so their vote shouldn't count. The other side, while well-intentioned, was equally ridiculous: women should vote because of their kind nature; that their votes would somehow be more caring of the real issues than men's votes. The flat out reason for women's suffrage, to me, was not because women were somehow kinder than men, nor should women be banned from voting, because they weren't as "strong" as men. The right for women to vote should have only been because they are human beings with a right to express their opinion, just like men, who were never granted the right to vote out of any other reason than they were male.

Consequently, homosexuals should be given the right to legal marriage (church marriage should, indeed, be left to the individual churches) if only because they have just as much a right to the legal rights of marriage as anyone else. Heterosexual marriage isn't certainly done for the most noble of reasons; why else would over half of marriages end in divorce? Why should homosexual marriages, somehow, be placed at a higher standard that not even heterosexuals can maintain?

I do have my issues with the gay population at-large, especially the promiscuous aspect, but that certainly isn't a trait specific to homosexuals. The average individual, for instance, has over nine sexual partners in their lifetime. We are absolutely no different than you guys; it is just that our sexuality is paraded like a joke in the media, which, by now, I would hope you realize is not realistic in regards to anything.

All right, now I'm really upset. A snide, condescending, superior comment like that doesn't belong in what has been by and large a calm debate. There are folks who have studied this stuff much more than you or I who hold opinions on both sides.

Oh? So when I use the Bible to condemn you, it is "condescending," but when the Bible is used to condemn me, it is somehow okay? It was certainly not my intention to be condescending, but can you perhaps see my point of view in regards to why the Bible is often such a hurtful book?

I leave you with one final question: if a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship between two men is pleasing in God's eyes, why isn't a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship between siblings?

"Siblings." An anomaly. Now why don't we go for something a bit more common, and equally forbidden in the Bible: cousins. In the OT, although I do forget where specifically, it forbids marriage all the way to like the 18th cousin or something like that. I can guarantee it is over 10th. Yet, in most states, you can marry your third cousin, and, in some, you can even marry your first cousin. Even marrying your third cousin can cause severe genetic abnormalities, but I don't see these marriages being banned. In fact, in the Catholic Church, for instance, marrying one's cousin is officially banned, but you can petition the church for a "dispensation"--essentially, a paper that bends the rules--that allows you to marry even your first cousin without any immorality. In fact, it is blatantly clear that society flat out ignores many prominent prohibitions in the New Testament:

--St. Paul makes *several* pronouncements against circumcision, declaring as harshly that anyone circumcized is directly going against Jesus Christ. Yet, most Westerners are circumcized.

--Jesus makes very harsh pronoucements against divorce for any reason, but, due to a blatant mistranslation in the KJV, many feel they can divorce due to a spouse's adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32 (KJV): "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.' But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (except for adultery) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

"adultery" = "porneia" = "blood mixing" / incest

Yup, back to my favorite mistranslated word, "porneia," which (I must give some credit to the Catholic Church) is at least consistently translated as "unlawful marriage" (see Acts 15:20), but is still incorrect. Jesus' "exception clause" in Matthew allows for divorce in the case of an incestuous marriage. All these harsh pronoucements against incest, and, yet, you are still allowed to marry a close cousin. Tsk tsk! Besides, I don't see many states or even Protestant churches that check to see if the divorce is due to adultery or not. "Irreconcilable differences" is not even an excuse to Jesus, even if you use the mistranslation in the KJV.

--St. Paul makes very strict pronoucements against women, going so far as to say that a woman is to never instruct over a man. Yet we still have all these female teachers.

And YET, we still have this insistence on keeping the Draconian pronoucements in the Bible against homosexuals, despite the fact that all the Draconian pronoucements against the heterosexual world is blatantly ignored by both religion and society. A double standard tinged in intolerance? You bet.

Melon

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Re: What's the deal?

I agree with Paul here that the law does not save us. But that doesn't mean that the law was wrong.
In Romans 7:7 (the start of a fascinating passage) Paul says, "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

You must be VERY careful when quoting St. Paul and "the law." He uses this word deceptively on purpose, especially in Romans, an epistle written to Jewish Christians in Rome. St. Paul was decisively anti-Jewish Christian, as his ministry was geared to Gentile converts. Romans can be divided into three sections: the beginning, which St. Paul mockingly tries to draw in the Jewish Christians and their sensibilities; the middle, where St. Paul starts with the deceptive "law" references, where he tries to trick the Jewish Christians into thinking he's referring to the Mosaic Law when he's really referring to the Golden Rule; and the end, where St. Paul flat out rejects the Mosaic Law.

If you read all of his epistles, St. Paul does finally define what his "the law" references refer to...and it refers to the Golden Rule. This is a *common* mistake in dealing with St. Paul, who emphatically believed that salvation was on faith alone. The Mosaic Law, in contrast, was unnecessary legalism to him.

Melon

 

[speedracer]

Melon, you still haven't answered my final question: why do you think incest is morally wrong (if that is indeed your view)? If you commit yourself to the view that the Mosaic Law has been replaced completely with the commands "love God" and "love your neighbor," why is it clear that incest violates one of these two commands? (If it's because of the possibility of having genetically unhealthy children, assume that the couple does not reproduce, whether it be because of a vasectomy, menopause, contraception, whatever.)

 

[Achtung Bubba]

I am now breaking two oaths.

I first promised to never address or acknowledge melon again, and I have since promised to never return to this overly biased forum. I am now temporarily breaking both promises.

I am fully aware of the consequences: melon will likely report me to the administrators, and Sicy will likely gloat in being right that my absence was temporary. I will no doubt appear to be a hypocrite, uncapable of making promises he can keep.

I really don't care, because the reason I'm breaking these oaths is that important.

Before the criticism comes, I will remind you that Oskar Schindler lied to protect the lives of over one thousand Jews. I'm not comparing myself to Schindler, but I believe there are good reasons to break one's word.

I choose to break my word to defend God's Word.


Melon, you are twisting the Word of God.

Before I focus on the most egregious lie, here are some of the other more objectionable assertions:

You assert that the philosophy of the fallen nature of man is a product of the Dark Ages, "completely unsubstantiated in the Bible," despite numerous well-known verses such as Romans 3:23 ("For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God") - and Romans 5:12:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

You assert that the "cult of marriage" began aroun A.D. 1100, despite the fact that Christ confirms the institution of marriage in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7.

You VERY WRONGLY assert that Acts 15:19-20 overturns the Mosaic Law. Rather, James urges to write the Gentiles to KEEP THE MOSAIC LAW - as is clear in verses 19-21, Today's English Version:

"It is my opinion," James went on, "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols; to keep themselves from sexual immorality; and not to eat any animal that has been strangled, or any blood. For the Law of Moses has been read for a very long time in the synagogues every Sabbath, and his words are preached in every town."

You also VERY WRONGLY assert that Galations 3:10-14 (among other verses) invalidates Mosaic law. Those under the Mosaic law are not cursed because the law is wrong: they are cursed because they do not perfectly follow it - they rely on it for salvation when it demands impossible perfection. "'Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law."


All that said, the most infuriating statement was this comment about the Mosaic Law (which you compared to the words of David Koresh):

My point is that I don't believe that the Mosaic Law was ever written, nor was it ever condoned by God Himself.

WRONG.

The following is a list of verses - certainly not comprehensive - in which Jesus Christ confirms or builds upon the Mosaic Law. The New Testament verse gives the relevent words of Christ; the corresponding Old Testament verse is the Scripture He is quoting or referencing.

Matthew 4:4 - Deut. 8:3
Matthew 4:7 - Deut. 6:16
Matthew 4:10 - Deut. 6:13
Matthew 5:21 - Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17
Matthew 5:27 - Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18
Matthew 5:43 - Lev. 19:18
Matthew 15:4 - Deut. 5:16,; Ex. 21:17 ("God commanded...")
Matthew 18:16 - Deut. 17:6
Matthew 19:4 - Gen. 1:27, 5:2
Matthew 19:5 - Gen. 2:24
Matthew 19:18 - Ex. 20:13-16
Matthew 19:19 - Ex. 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20; Lev. 19:18
Matthew 22:32 - Ex. 3:6, 15
Matthew 22:37 - Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 30:6 ("Love thy neighbor")
Matthew 22:39 - Lev. 19:18

Mark 7:10 - Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Ex. 21:17
Mark 10:6 - Gen. 1:27, 5:2
Mark 10:7-8 - Gen. 2:24
Mark 10:18 - Ex. 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20
Mark 12:26 - Ex. 3:6, 15
Mark 12:29 - Deut. 6:4
Mark 12:30 - Deut. 10:12, 30:6
Mark 12:31 - Lev. 19:18

Luke 4:4 - Deut. 8:3
Luke 4:8 - Deut. 6:13, 10:20
Luke 4:12 - Deut. 6:16
Luke 18:20 - Ex. 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20
Luke 20:37 - Ex. 3:1-6

Two things are worth noting: first, in Matthew 15:4, Jesus Christ attributes the commandment to honor one's parents not to Moses or the priests, but to GOD HIMSELF.

Also, Christ's two great commandments (love God; love your neighbor) ARE QUOTES FROM THE MOSAIC LAW.

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. - Deuteronomy 6:5.

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:18.

THIS is the Mosaic law you condemn, that which you compare to the rantings of David Koresh.

There are at least two dozen Gospel verses in which Jesus Christ directly condones, confirms, fulfills, or expands upon the books of Moses. Jesus Christ apparently points to the Mosaic Law as a thing to be believed - not as a thing He follows as a good rabbi, but as a thing He created as God Almighty.

And yet you say it was never "condoned by God Himself."

So.

Is Jesus Christ not God, or are three of the four Gospels utterly riddled with lies about Jesus? Are you unaware of these quotes? Or are you simply willfully lying about the Bible?

There is no telling if/when your complaints to the admin's result in my banning, so I will be honest: I believe you're knowingly, willfully lying about the Bible, and I seriously wonder about a Christian who is capable of such an act.

Lawrence

 

[Angela Harlem]

Perhaps you might like to edit Bubba so your post contains no personal slant and your reply can be carried on its own merit and your view appreciated for what is is, leaving no cause for complaint. I say this as you seem to think what you said will warrant a complaint and all. Why bring it on needlessly.

 

[foray]

In the spirit of this thread's original topic, I accept that Bubba has a right to put forth opposing views. But sheesh, Bub, couldn't you for once doff your self-righteous attitude? I wonder if you speak this way in real life. (edit: I write all this in response to the first 6 paragraphs of Bub's reply).

melon, I greatly appreciate your alternative interpretation of Genesis 19. I shall discuss it further with my Christian friends to see what we come up with.

foray

 

[famous rungi]

melon, how do you explain

1 Corinthians 6
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

foray

 

[diamond]

Well I DONT think the 10 Commandments
became
the 10 Suggestions after the time of Christ ,now did they?

In other words, Christ said love God first, your neighbor 2nd..
BUT did NOT eradicate the 10 Commandments..
I mean were still NOT suppose to lie,cheat and steal correct as dictated in the 10 Commandments?
Christ came along to teach a higher law and fine-tune the old one(keeping the 10 Commandments and getting rid of some of the Mosiac traditional ones)

That's my read on it
Word.

DB9

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Angela:

I have no idea what precisely is so objectionable about my post, what you mean by a personal slant.

My post is certainly no more controversial and objectionable than melon's posts, which compare the first five books of the Bible to the rantings of David Koresh:

As I've read, the writers of the Mosaic Law were not mainstream Jews, but a fanatical splinter group, which is why I believe the Talmuds spent so much time voiding the Mosaic Law. It would perhaps be comparable to people 2500 years later taking the texts of David Koresh and believing them to be representative of all of Christianity.

foray:

If I didn't acknowledge the fact that I was breaking my agreement to ignore melon and my promise to leave, someone else (probably melon or Sicy) would have done it for me - and made it (rather thant the content) the focus of the discussion. To preempt such a digression, I decided to introduce my post with a humble acknowledgement that I know full well what promises I'm breaking and the likely consequences.

I got all that out in the open at the very beginning, admitting everything. I don't see what's self-righteous about that at all.

Bubba

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the deal?

You must be VERY careful when quoting St. Paul and "the law." He uses this word deceptively on purpose, especially in Romans, an epistle written to Jewish Christians in Rome. St. Paul was decisively anti-Jewish Christian, as his ministry was geared to Gentile converts. Romans can be divided into three sections: the beginning, which St. Paul mockingly tries to draw in the Jewish Christians and their sensibilities; the middle, where St. Paul starts with the deceptive "law" references, where he tries to trick the Jewish Christians into thinking he's referring to the Mosaic Law when he's really referring to the Golden Rule; and the end, where St. Paul flat out rejects the Mosaic Law.

If you read all of his epistles, St. Paul does finally define what his "the law" references refer to...and it refers to the Golden Rule. This is a *common* mistake in dealing with St. Paul, who emphatically believed that salvation was on faith alone. The Mosaic Law, in contrast, was unnecessary legalism to him.

Well, I disagree on this. The reason I quoted that verse was to show that Paul is very clearly refering to O.T. law. He goes so far as to quote it. He says that the law says "Do not covet" - a direct quotation from O.T. law.

As Paul concludes his letter to the Romans, he quotes several commandments from the O.T. law and says that it is summed up in (not replaced by) this rule: love your neighbor as yourself (another quote from the O.T. law).

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Precisely right, Sprial.

It helps bring new light to something foray said about my post:

In the spirit of this thread's original topic, I accept that Bubba has a right to put forth opposing views.

Foray, the views I just expressed are "opposing views" only insofar as they oppose what melon says. But look at widely accepted translations of the Bible, mainstream biblical scholars, and the theological beliefs held by a large number of Christians (particularly evangelical Protestantism).

Outside of this thread, my beliefs are in the mainstream of Christianity. They are not "opposing views," but thanks anyway for defending my right to express them.

Once again, these beliefs are as follows:

- That Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 (among other verses) confirm the fallen nature of man.

- That Jesus Christ confirms the divine institution of marriage in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7.

- That, in Acts 15:19-20, James urges the writing of letters that confirm practicing at least parts of the Mosaic Law.

- That the Pauline Epistles (Galations 3:10-14 and other verses) confirms the Mosaic Law, not as the path to salvation, but as the delineation of God's impossible standard - a standard that necessitates New Testament grace.

- Most importantly, that Jesus Christ (God Incarnate) confirms the validity of at least parts of the Mosaic Law in over two dozen verses across three of the Gospels.

Bubba

 

[Sicy]

Well.. hello Bubba. Cant say I'm surprised to see you here, and addressing melon once again.

Melon had the decency to ASK me if he can reply to you.

He has been told he can reply after I discussed it with Elvis... BUT if either party resort to personal attacks, both memberships will be considered for termination.

That's that.

 

[Elvis]

Well.. hello Bubba. Cant say I'm surprised to see you here, and addressing melon once again.

Melon had the decency to ASK me if he can reply to you.

He has been told he can reply after I discussed it with Elvis... BUT if either party resort to personal attacks, both memberships will be considered for termination.

That's that.

Sicy forgot one detail...

I own you both

Behave.

 

[melon]

melon, how do you explain

1 Corinthians 6
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

foray

"Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders" refers to a common Greek practice of older men ("homosexual offenders" or "malakos," meaning soft, ignorant, and is a degrading term towards females) having sex with young boys ("male prostitutes" or "arsenokoitai"). As translated, you can certainly see the problem--we're talking about two different issues. Pedophilia and prostitution is different than modern homosexuality. The root words support this claim, which is in the footnotes of a Catholic Bible I own (ironically, while still containing the same bad translations).

"homosexual offenders" = "arsenokoitai"

Root: the Septuagint (ancient Greek) translation of Leviticus 18:22. "Arseno" referring to husband or "ish" and "koitai" referring to "zakar."

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Now to reduce the key words back to their original translation:

"'Ish' shall not lie with 'zakar' as those who lie with 'ishah'. It is 'toevah'"

Ish = husband
Ishah = wife
Toevah = ritual condemnation

The dubious word in question is "zakar." If the writers insisted on making it a blanket condemnation of same sex relations, it would have said "'Ish' shall not lie with 'ish.'" Instead, it uses the more dubious "zakar," which is believed to be a word in reference to a male temple prostitute, as this was a very popular cult ritual back then. Again, the question is whether this passage is in blanket condemnation of homosexual activity or the pagan implication it had to have sex with a male temple prostitute, as it was the belief of these pagan religions that to be close to the gods was to engage in large temple orgies. These, however, were not wholly homosexual in activity, but, rather, bisexual.

St. Paul, himself, writes many pronouncements against idolatrous practices, so this explanation is at least plausible.

Of course, please do not tell me you believe everything St. Paul says. I do believe you are female, are you not? St. Paul pronounces that you are subordinate and not fit to instruct over men. Shall we enforce that provision as well?

Melon

 

[melon]

Well I DONT think the 10 Commandments
became
the 10 Suggestions after the time of Christ ,now did they?

Read over the Ten Commandments. What do all of them have in common? They tell you to love your neighbor! In fact, not only does Jesus' Golden Rule cover all of the Ten Commandments and more, He put an extra burden onto us to love our enemies as well. The Ten Commandments say nothing about hating one's enemies, which was morally acceptable in the Old Testament.

Love is more than just "lustful thoughts" and an orgasm at the end. True love, as espoused by Jesus, tells you to put others before yourself--everything that the Ten Commandments tell you. That is the "love" I am referring to. The Ten Commandments are frankly superfluous to even mention with the Golden Rule.

Melon